Is Another War on the Way?

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but all these guys really want is the oil fields, I think - a few Neocons may actually pine for the good old days when Iran was our own Colony in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. Look at what's happened in Iraq with Iraqi oil - how has Iraqi oil production changed since? Further, the logistics of physically occupying just Khuzestan, let alone occupying it and ensuring oil production reaches our borders, would be immense.

[/ QUOTE ]

they are going do something with Iran, and they CANNOT occupy it like they do Iraq - no way - it would be obscenly costly both for civilians, US troops, and much more destructive - Iran has been known to raise BRIGADES of suicide troops - that's how they started turning the tide of the Iran/Iraq war before we started selling arms to our buddies in Iraq in the 80's

But if you have the population in the north and a massive inhospitable desert between you and the bombed out capital (which will probably look a lot like Lebanon when done), you would have a much easier time defending that part of the country there in the south. Just like Hitler retaking the Rhineland - just a little bump on our overall front line between Iran and Iraq -

Especially if you've been playing to the loyalities of the tribesmen in the area - this isn't a stretch - it's the same thing we did in Afghanistan and Iraq - we find a local insurgency or tribe with a desire to fight the head of the state and then we fund it and they become our allies vs. the main powers - just like the Afghan Rebellion and the Kurds in Iraq.

If we do what I think we're going to do, it'll be the third time we've done it in the Middle East under this president, so it is emminently doable.

rb

[John21]

I'm pretty sure our (U.S.) strategy is to keep the Middle East in a constant state of unrest. Play one side against the other and if any faction becomes too powerful - knock it down to keep an even par.

Whatever means justify those ends will more that likely be employeed. Our Mid-East policy hasn't changed for 30 or 40 years, despite the rhetoric.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure our (U.S.) strategy is to keep the Middle East in a constant state of unrest. Play one side against the other and if any faction becomes too powerful - knock it down to keep an even par.

Whatever means justify those ends will more that likely be employeed. Our Mid-East policy hasn't changed for 30 or 40 years, despite the rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Americans are totally ignorant of it -

they wonder why Iranians and Iraqi's hate America - well, let's see - for 30-40 yrs, we've sold weapons to one side so they could kill the other -

and we did it interchangably between the two sides for 30-40 years depending on whether they were our ally or not - and now we're going after them both and they want our blood as repayment.

sheeit - I'd hate us too.

rb

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The cowardly appeasing politicans of pre-WWII Europe ...

[/ QUOTE ]Jesus. We've been through this so many times. You've been provided with text, links, arguments, the works. And not just by me.

Don't you examine seriously anything that contradicts your views?

Mickey Brausch

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Diplomacy will fail. Russia, China, and the French
will veto sanctions. The UN is usless and the USA should leave that corrupt organization.

[ QUOTE ]
So if we go in, we need to pound them with everything we got and knock them down so they (Iran & Syria) can't get up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bomb the Iranian oil fields and their nuclear sites. Hopefully the economic loss of their oil will be enough to topple their govt. Perhaps military support for Iranian moderates will result in the theocracy being overthrown. Oil is the key. It finances their regime, Shia terrorism, and their nuclear program... Destroy their oil production and this will solve a lot of problems....

[ QUOTE ]
Tactical nukes can be justified because if we fail and allow Iran to develop and use either itself or through its proxies, nukes on us, then the long term cost to us will be much higher.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think we should use any nukes UNLESS....Iran gives nukes to terrorist groups for the purpose of nuclear terrorism. If terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in an American city......then the USA needs to eradicate all countries involved regardless of how small their role was or whether the govt officially copperated with the terrorists or not. Then we use REAL nukes.....not those useless firecrackers that we call tactical nukes.....

When nuclear terrorism occurs (not if it occurs), Saudia Arabia's clandestine support of terrorism (via sympathetic Royal family members) will result in the end of Saudia Arabia under a rain of nuclear weapons..... They get their 72 virgins and we take away their financial source of terrorism.....their oil.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure our (U.S.) strategy is to keep the Middle East in a constant state of unrest. Play one side against the other and if any faction becomes too powerful - knock it down to keep an even par.

Whatever means justify those ends will more that likely be employeed. Our Mid-East policy hasn't changed for 30 or 40 years, despite the rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Americans are totally ignorant of it -

they wonder why Iranians and Iraqi's hate America - well, let's see - for 30-40 yrs, we've sold weapons to one side so they could kill the other -

and we did it interchangably between the two sides for 30-40 years depending on whether they were our ally or not - and now we're going after them both and they want our blood as repayment.

sheeit - I'd hate us too.

rb

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not good but at least setting one side against another is a coherent foreign policy - much loved by the British before we lost the plot.

Now the foreign policy seems to be to unite our enemies against us. If that's the plan its being executed brilliantly but as that plan makes no sense I assume it's stunning incompetence.

[or we could view it as the plan of the other side being brilliantly executed by them]

chez

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Diplomacy will fail. Russia, China, and the French
will veto sanctions. The UN is usless and the USA should leave that corrupt organization.

[ QUOTE ]
So if we go in, we need to pound them with everything we got and knock them down so they (Iran & Syria) can't get up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bomb the Iranian oil fields and their nuclear sites. Hopefully the economic loss of their oil will be enough to topple their govt. Perhaps military support for Iranian moderates will result in the theocracy being overthrown. Oil is the key. It finances their regime, Shia terrorism, and their nuclear program... Destroy their oil production and this will solve a lot of problems....

[ QUOTE ]
Tactical nukes can be justified because if we fail and allow Iran to develop and use either itself or through its proxies, nukes on us, then the long term cost to us will be much higher.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think we should use any nukes UNLESS....Iran gives nukes to terrorist groups for the purpose of nuclear terrorism. If terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in an American city......then the USA needs to eradicate all countries involved regardless of how small their role was or whether the govt officially copperated with the terrorists or not. Then we use REAL nukes.....not those useless firecrackers that we call tactical nukes.....

When nuclear terrorism occurs (not if it occurs), Saudia Arabia's clandestine support of terrorism (via sympathetic Royal family members) will result in the end of Saudia Arabia under a rain of nuclear weapons..... They get their 72 virgins and we take away their financial source of terrorism.....their oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the Iraq game plan.

Shock and Awe, cheering hordes helping us overthrow the government, the key is oil.

Exactly how long has it been in Iraq since "Mission Accomplished"?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the Iraq game plan.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. In Iraq the Kurds are our most valuable resource. Bush43's failure to utilize them was(is) a terrible mistake. Iraq is an artificial country created by ignorant men after WW1. If it were me, possible strategies for Iraq would include:
1. Kurdish dictatorship over Iraq
2. Partition Iraq into three different countries (Sunni, Shia, Kurds).
Also Bush's failure to arrest Sadr and his thugs when they crossed into Iraq was a display of mass incompetance. When they came, they were armed w/ AK47s, grenades, and RPGs. The US troops were only allowed to disarm them. If you try to cross any other international border with military weapons and get caught.....you will be arrested. This was a criminally STUPID blunder by Bush....

[ QUOTE ]
Shock and Awe, cheering hordes helping us overthrow the government, the key is oil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Iraqi oil is no longer funding terrorism.
As for the cheering hordes, yes the Kurds were cheering. The Sunnis were pissed. The Shia were happy intially but Sunni terrorism and Sadr's meddling screwed things up.

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly how long has it been in Iraq since "Mission Accomplished"?

[/ QUOTE ]
The mission of the US Navy was to provide air support in the battle to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The US Navy completed this mission. The US Navy sailors were returning home to their families and Bush43 joined them in they celebration. If you noticed, the Army, Marines, and Air Force never displayed banners saying their mission was accomplished..... I don't understand why you cast scorn on the US Navy for celebrating a successful mission.

[ACPlayer]

Was I wrong in what you wrote originally, a little shock and awe, we will be welcomed as we overthrow the Saddam Govt, we will use the oil to rebuild?

In that post it was all the same "plan" for Iraq.

Now in this post there is a bunch of we coulda, should and if only woulda.

[ QUOTE ]

Iraqi oil is no longer funding terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to provide an example of Iraqi oil being used to fund terrorism against the US. The linking of terrorism against us and Iraq is a lie -- plain and simple, a lie said with full knowledge and complete cynicism by a most corrupt government.

[NoExtinction]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we should use any nukes UNLESS....Iran gives nukes to terrorist groups for the purpose of nuclear terrorism. If terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in an American city......then the USA needs to eradicate all countries involved regardless of how small their role was or whether the govt officially copperated with the terrorists or not. Then we use REAL nukes.....not those useless firecrackers that we call tactical nukes.....

[/ QUOTE ]

How will we know which contries are involved, 'however small' their role was? We may as well nuke Pakistan then, since AQ Khan was responsible for flooding the region with nuclear technology. May as well nuke every other country in between then, as they 'allowed' passage of persons and material.

You're going to trust the gov to tell you which countries are/will be involved.. and that will justify killing millions and destroying the region's environment, and guaranteeing that the survivors will have one thing on their mind ~ to kill Americans (as many as possible)